Salt Lake City staff propose code changes to follow new state law removing public hearings for appeals and variances

Salt Lake City planning staff on Tuesday outlined a proposed ordinance change to remove local public-hearing requirements for appeals of land‑use decisions and variance requests, saying the change is needed to conform city code with House Bill 368 from the 2025 Utah Legislature.

The brief, delivered by a planning staff member identified in the meeting only as “Nick,” explained that the state law—“that law went into effect on May 7, so we're already following it,” Nick said—prohibits cities from holding public hearings for those appeals. City staff recommended amending the municipal code to avoid confusion about the city’s process.

City staff framed the text amendment as primarily code cleanup and alignment with state rules. Because variances and many commission appeals were historically decided on the written record, the staff member said the proposed code would add a 12‑day notice and an evidentiary submission period so that neighbors and interested parties can file documentary evidence for appeals that proceed to an appeals officer. “We do want to have some sort of period for collecting record,” the planner said.

The staffer outlined how variances are decided: under state law applicants must meet five standards, including an “unreasonable hardship” that cannot be purely economic and must arise from unique property circumstances such as natural features or unusually small lots. He said the city receives relatively few variance requests — “we average just under three applications per year” — and that in the past five years the city had three variances granted and most requests denied.

Staff explained the difference between appeals of planning‑commission decisions—where no new evidence is typically accepted because the appeal reviews the record of the planning commission—and appeals of staff‑level administrative decisions, which historically required a public hearing because they are de novo and can involve new evidence. Under the proposed code, appeals would continue to accept evidence but not through a public hearing; instead the 12‑day notice and an evidence deadline would be used as the record for the appeals officer.

No council action or formal vote was taken at the work session. Staff said a vote is scheduled for the council’s 7 p.m. formal meeting.

City staff flagged practical details for the council: that most appeals in the past five years were enforcement appeals, that variances remain a high legal bar, and that the 12‑day notice period is intended to preserve an evidentiary record if cases go on to judicial review. The presentation included several procedural clarifications and invited council questions about how the notice and evidence deadlines would be implemented.

The council did ask whether the notice and written‑evidence period would provide the same opportunities to discover new factual information as a public hearing; staff replied that documentary evidence can be submitted and the 12‑day window is intended to permit new facts to be placed into the record.

The item remains before the council; staff said the proposed text amendment would return as an ordinance for a formal vote at the regular meeting later the same evening.